Eric Wall

@beaniemaxi Base is for squirting.

So Jesse Pollak finally admits he was wrong about creator coins. But leaves absolute carnage in his wake. So many actual thought leaders with far more crypto native experience called it disasterous from day 1. He keeps his job at Coinbase. No real consequences. Business as usual.

@wk057 @PakoVM I think this is the first instance of a Knots supporter realizing he is retarded Kudos sir

@PakoVM I'm still pissed about the Core 30 OP_RETURN thing, and did in fact hold 0 BTC as a result. I later realized that was retarded, and bought back in lower. So... thanks Core 30 I guess? 😳

Too late to jump ship after supposedly selling all of your Bitcoin because of Core 30.

@hodlonaut You’ve posted about this subject a lot, time to learn the basics soon?

@hodlonaut Large OP_RETURNs don’t ”facilitate Alpen’s business model”. As Citrea already showed, their business model works perfectly fine using unspendable outputs for variable ZK proof sizes. A relaxed OP_RETURN facilitates doing what they already knew how to do without UTXO bloat.

The people frantically trying to smear and discredit BIP-110 tells its own and very clear story.... David Seroy's employer is Alpen Labs. Read more about how the OP_RETURN uncap facilitated Alpen Labs's business model in the CAPTURE series: citadel21.com/the-merge

@adam3us :

On the filter fork topic. I don't usually have time, but this morning listened to one of the twitter spaces from earlier in the week, with some well meaning relative bitcoin newcomers, that humanized them, and their concerns and thoughts for why they thought that made it logical to support 110. My feeling after listening, is if these are the people with #110 in their handles, I'm sad to see them about to fork off and get disillusioned without understanding why bitcoin rejected 110 robustly. So here's a more empathetic, constructive higher level version of explaining why not. I hope it's high-level and first-principles enough that everyone can follow. They seem to want to understand what makes people tick, and are suspicious of intent. So, if someone asked me why is Bitcoin important and what is it, I'd say my (personal) mission and hope for bitcoin is to build the cypherpunk future, that "Snow Crash" was a blueprint, and work backwards from there. Bitcoin I hope leads to fully free markets via bearer unseizable, hard mathematically dependable money. Not everyone is comfortable with that level of freedom, but that's my view. And at this point, I believe that surprisingly, even now many governments have come to understand and value bitcoin's gold-like mathematical assurance, a positive development. Others may have milder views than myself, but still like hard censorship resistant money. Because of motive suspicion, if it's not obvious: I hate spam with a passion, that's how I came to design hashcash while researching decentralized bearer money with others, and running nodes in privacy related cypherpunk p2p networks nearly three decades ago. People seem upset about the default op return policy change in bitcoin. I will just assert, there are extremely robust and simple reasons for bitcoin changing default relay policy, and most just didn't do their research, so don't know what those are, or maybe not technical enough to fully understand though there have been 1000s of posts trying to explain in various simplified ways. So that lack of understanding lends itself to shared build-up of false narratives. So here's my back-to-basics higher level explanation. The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications a: side effect of decentralization is that you can't impose your views on others. The very decentralization mechanism that helps that, is working against what BIP 110 wants, which at it's most basic is a quest to police other people. I understand supporters don't see their intent like that, but introspect deeper. You can modify your software, but not anyone else's. Another critical and incredibly robust technical bitcoin immune system is bitcoin can't have people who don't understand technology basics insist on eroding security, decentralization robustness and core properties. That would end badly, fast, and so people will fight you on that. So the message is Bitcoin respectfully says "no" to what you want. Sorry, and bitcoiners do genuinely understand and empathize that you mean well, have high level thoughts that make emotional sense, and articulate sensible bitcoin-defensive high level ideas, but they are not grounded and without you seeing it, the way you propose to achieve your ideas, hard-conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money. My advice is to listen to more experienced people who understand the system and why it works the way it does, to whatever detail you want to understand the grounded reasons for why this is the implication of decentralization and cypherpunk money. I guarantee you the developer and protocol ecosystem shares and exceeds your views on bearer hard money (and dislike of spam). You may not agree with individual developers choices, views, way of expressing themselves etc, BUT you also need to understand the IETF-like decentralized technical consensus process creates a protective change resistance, that is highly effective at protecting bitcoin mission. The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus. And the many highly technical mainline developers' cypherpunk mission mindsets are probably far more determined than you can even handle on clarity of understanding and views about freedoms on permissionless networks, as many of you are probably still subconsciously inured by the matrix, where they have transcended that, and grew up immersed in it decades ago. They think natively in this space, while you are just grappling with the surface. Many wont have internalized or have the experience to know how this internet physics works, where there is no policeman, no policy authority, just mathematics, free market and hard money. That has implications for your views also, unfortunately. Now the tough pill, which is unfortunately true: If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But bitcoin won't be joining it. (With respect and no sleight intended.) Please rejoin bitcoin now, or later if you're not convinced and need to experience 110 forking off and fizzling for yourself to start that journey of introspecting and learning. It would be sad if bitcoin lost people disillusioned due to simple lack of understanding of what's going on there, we're all trying to defend bitcoin and keep it on mission. Including btw the 110 technical promoters, just they wandered off plot somehow. Join the cypherpunks on bitcoin, come cypherpunk summer🌞 in a few weeks.

We have a word for what happens when one group of people/entities are closer in proximity to the money printer: ”Cantillon Effect” Super important concept to grasp societal inequality What will the word for one’s proximity to next-gen frontier intelligence be?

@coinjoined LMAO

When you see a Bitcoin node debate and nobody's been called a liar or a pedo yet:

@dathon_ohm did @cguida6 cum in his own face as he wrote this

With only 4236 blocks (~29 days) left until non-BIP110-signaling blocks become invalid, BIP-110's hashrate continues to climb to new all-time highs, as Bitcoin's movement to reject arbitrary data attains unstoppable momentum.

@LayerTwoLabs @coinjoined @LukeDashjr It’s going up forever

Thread: @Lukedashjr Liarposting By The Numbers Account-wide since July 2012: - 159,875 total posts - 0.95% (1526) of all posts contain “liar” - first “liar” tweet: February 4, 2017 - highest LPM (liars per month): 97 times in April 2026 - 2025: 381 “liar” posts - 2026 YTD: 339 “liar” posts - latest 6-month rolling share: 3.09% of posts contain “liar” Charts below 👇

@RobinSeyr It isn’t the first time Last year he posted this video which ends with the text ”Run Knots” A year or two before that he defended Ordinals When it comes to the philosophy of the tech he is no more coherent than say Peter McCormack

First time I've seen Michael Saylor take an indirect stance on Core vs. Knots. Is it a fair argument to say we don't need a spam filter since fees are so low?

@kalel365 I support the frothing foliage of consensus Bitcoin is a system where every possible action by every individual is supported and it is bestowed upon the system to settle the balance So yes.

@ercwl do you support bip 110?

BIP-110 people, don't fork yourselves off. The spam is gone. No one is even using large OP_RETURNs. Luke is a weird retard and you haven't even noticed that you disagree with him about critical stuff. You have no market support. You will directionally go the way of big blockers but achieve less than 1% of their failed result. No one will remember you (except for that "weird period when bitcoiners were all talking about CSAM"). Not even Zucco thinks you're wired right. @BitMEX_Jon will probably start to write a book about you at some point and then decide it isn't really worth the time and downgrade the task to an Al-generated blogpost.

Yep. The Knots plebs "revolt" was actually going pretty well imo. BIP110 nonsense killed it. :(

@realizingerin maren altman is rolling in her grave

@realizingerin i think i’ve cracked this. you’re just making astute manual observations and backfilling it with astro-mumblejumble. that’s cheating!

2026 is when AI stopped answering questions and started doing things

@toobaddown @LukeDashjr I’ll bet a tungsten cube that the retards (BIP-110) will lose

Without @ercwl commenting on bip110, I am really unsure what to think about it. Takes range from how monarchy is good and @LukeDashjr should be the dev king to this being literally 1930 and the Gold Reserve Act playing out onchain.

@ErikVoorhees @dragonfly_xyz Is this at the same time an admission that you *don’t* own (and thereby don’t control?) the compute today? x.com/erikvoorhees/s…

VVV and Capital Measured by revenue, Venice has become the largest company at the intersection of AI and cryptoeconomics. Today, we announced Venice’s first round of outside capital, a $65m Series A led by @dragonfly_xyz, valuing Venice’s equity at $1 billion. Since we are an atypical company, this thread describes how this equity raise relates to the most valuable asset we have on our balance sheet, our capital token base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

@w_s_bitcoin Some got got

It’s July 2026, one month before BIP-110 forks off, and there are still knotzis asking why Core increased the OP_RETURN limit nine months ago. Imagine not being able to figure it out after that much time. Then again, there’s a reason they were ignored in the first place.

Ordinals are now BIP-110 ready. github.com/ordinals/ord/p…

@salvatoshi @lifofifo Bytes weren’t touching in Ordinals before either so that doesn’t matter

@lifofifo Eh, but it doesn't count - bytes aren't touching!